Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
M8 + 35mm f/1.4 Summilux pre-asph (@ f/2)
maddoc
... likes film again.
Gabriel, with the M8 you let the lens sing ! I like the colors in your photos a lot ! 
Another night shot from me (M5 / S800)
Cheers,
Gabor
Another night shot from me (M5 / S800)
Cheers,
Gabor
Melvin
Flim Forever!
So, which of the shots on this thread were taken wide open?
Last edited:
maddoc
... likes film again.
From my shots (the recent ones, starting from #176) all were taken at f/1.4 except in post #184 (f/4.0) and #185 (f/5.6).
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Gabriel, with the M8 you let the lens sing ! I like the colors in your photos a lot !
Thank you
One of the "secrets" is to have a properly calibrated monitor and properly profiled RAW file.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
All of those that are mine, except where noted (at the bottom of each image).
buckpago
Established
this one reminds me a photograph I took when I was in Akihabara Station, this one was shot with m4p 35mm lux pre asph on a 100tmax wide open.
taxi38
Taxi Driver
Is there a scale of "goodness" with this lens?Mine is made in Canada,serial no.3253715which is 1983.Is there a difference between the German and Canadian models?..........thanks,Neil.
kevin m
Veteran
By any objective standard, this lens is a poor performer.
On the plus side: It's small and handles nicely; It's performance is decent by f2.8.
On the minus side: By modern standards it's simply horrible wide open. It draws more like a pinhole lens or a Holga than any modern 35mm lens. Coma, flare and distortion abound. And, contrary to internet word-of-mouth, it's performance is still relatively poor at f2.0. It doesn't really render a modern-looking image until f2.8.
To paraphrase Roger, it's the sort of thing for people who like this sort of thing.
35 pre-aspherical Summilux @ f1.4.
On the plus side: It's small and handles nicely; It's performance is decent by f2.8.
On the minus side: By modern standards it's simply horrible wide open. It draws more like a pinhole lens or a Holga than any modern 35mm lens. Coma, flare and distortion abound. And, contrary to internet word-of-mouth, it's performance is still relatively poor at f2.0. It doesn't really render a modern-looking image until f2.8.
To paraphrase Roger, it's the sort of thing for people who like this sort of thing.
35 pre-aspherical Summilux @ f1.4.
MikeL
Go Fish
Kevin, is it at all possible you had a bad version? Objectively, mine has pretty good resolution (relative to modern standards, 35mm specifically) at f2.
kevin m
Veteran
My lens was nearly mint. It still demonstrated a level of ghosting flare at f2.0 that simply wasn't up to modern standards. (The little Skopar 35/2.5 I owned along with it was much better.)
If you like the look, that's cool. I've seen some great shots with the lens, myself. But what one "likes" is purely subjective.
If you like the look, that's cool. I've seen some great shots with the lens, myself. But what one "likes" is purely subjective.
J. Borger
Well-known
I had 2 versions of the lens: titanium very late german made versions.
I had two because i was stupid enough to sell my first, so now i have one
- Both versions are perfectly usable wide open.
- Never showed the flare sometimes reported here.
- From f2,8 to f16 are sharper/ show more resolution then a chrome 35mm type IV german made cron i owned
- At f2 it is a hard call between the cron and my lux pre-asph.
From all i have seen from this lens i can only draw 2 conclusions:
- there is sample variation .. and especially the later german models are very good lenses... much better than their reputation
- performance with R-d1 and M8 is even better than with film Leicas.
Here are 3 testshots wide open.... not what i would call unusable or soft like a holga.
I had two because i was stupid enough to sell my first, so now i have one
- Both versions are perfectly usable wide open.
- Never showed the flare sometimes reported here.
- From f2,8 to f16 are sharper/ show more resolution then a chrome 35mm type IV german made cron i owned
- At f2 it is a hard call between the cron and my lux pre-asph.
From all i have seen from this lens i can only draw 2 conclusions:
- there is sample variation .. and especially the later german models are very good lenses... much better than their reputation
- performance with R-d1 and M8 is even better than with film Leicas.
Here are 3 testshots wide open.... not what i would call unusable or soft like a holga.
Attachments
Last edited:
maddoc
... likes film again.
That is exactly my experience, too. Last year, I had both lenses (the 35mm Summilux-M pre-ASPH (German) and the 35mm Summicron-M IV (Canada)) and shot a quick comparison using ISO100 film and tripod. At f/2.0 the Summilux-M shows a little less contrast compared to the Cron but resolves fine details better. After adjusting the levels, the photos taken with the Summilux looked better. I have sold the 35mm Summicron-M IV since then...
J. Borger
Well-known
Melvin
Flim Forever!
They do look good. I do think that the cropping of the digital cameras helps though, since the worst aberrations show up toward the edges of the photo.
The lighting conditions also appear very even, and the seamless quality of digital helps with resolution.(I took some test shots with this lens recently, and the grain of the tri-x film obscured the finest level of detail.)
On the other hand, Kevin's photo is pushing the limits of the lens where it is most vulnerable:flare.
I don't think that aberrations in a lens have that much to do with production tolerances, especially a Leitz lens. They're in the design. But correct me if I'm wrong.
J. Borger
Well-known
From the books it looks that the lensformula of the 35 lux pre-asph through the years is the same.
I know nothing about lensformulas or physics. But simply looking at samples of pictures on-line i see pictures with this lens where i can't believe it is the same lens ... not good indeed.
I have no explanation for this but i am not the only one seeing this.
For the digital Part: Maddoc usses a similar late version of the lens as mine with FILM and comes to the same conclusion when he compares it to the 35 summicron iv which has a very good reputation and is of similar vintage: the 35mm summilux is better on many aspects including resolution!
The 35 summilux pre-asph suffers from coma and is not the most flare resistant lens in my bag but it is my favourite 35mm lens.
When it comes to a more modern look and flawless performance the ZM biogon and 35 sumicron asph are better lenses by all means. But here is more to a lens!
I have used and owned: 35 summicron asph, 35mm summicron iV, 35mm summaron 3,5 LTM and 35mm summarit. I sold all the others because the 35mm sumilux pre-asph is my favourite.
Melvin
Flim Forever!
J. Borger: I'm a fan of the 'lux myself. I just think that how well it performs has a lot to do with how it's used.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The 35f1,4 was Leicas response to the Nikon 35f1.8 and to some extent the Canon 35f1.5 in the early 60's. I have had one, in one form or another, since that time. So, it is not the sharpest 35 around, but who cares. IF you were shooting at f1.4 in the early sixties, you probably shot either press or magazine work. Color was still a bit of a novelty and editors were leery, because it was expensive to print! They wanted shots that made it possible to write a caption and identify who,what,when,where and possibly why! Razor sharp images were a bonus, but not really what counted.
The first generation of the 35f1.4 wasn't that good, but nobody rejected a shot because it had "look at the come here, and the field curvature is bad or "mechanics" like that" OK, occasionally they grunted about flare "Oh, cant get the face of that guy - I will cut him out".
I still have one, a late one, #34xx xxx (too lazy to look up the number!). I still use it and it is not bad at all. My Nokton's, the 35f1.4 SC's are better - but the Summilux works well too. Just keep spotlights out of the frame.
The thing with vintage lenses is - they do have personality and sometimes that can improve on an image. OK, my big beef with the 35f1.4, even my late one, is the close focussing to 0.9m only - on the other hand, if needed I can crop it.
I like what you guys have up on this thread - some good shots. They would most likely have been just as good with a Nokton, an Asph Summilux or a Canon 35 or any of the multitude of 35 lenses around today.
A lens is just another tool - the quality of the work depends on the skill of the worker using it - more than anything else!
The first generation of the 35f1.4 wasn't that good, but nobody rejected a shot because it had "look at the come here, and the field curvature is bad or "mechanics" like that" OK, occasionally they grunted about flare "Oh, cant get the face of that guy - I will cut him out".
I still have one, a late one, #34xx xxx (too lazy to look up the number!). I still use it and it is not bad at all. My Nokton's, the 35f1.4 SC's are better - but the Summilux works well too. Just keep spotlights out of the frame.
The thing with vintage lenses is - they do have personality and sometimes that can improve on an image. OK, my big beef with the 35f1.4, even my late one, is the close focussing to 0.9m only - on the other hand, if needed I can crop it.
I like what you guys have up on this thread - some good shots. They would most likely have been just as good with a Nokton, an Asph Summilux or a Canon 35 or any of the multitude of 35 lenses around today.
A lens is just another tool - the quality of the work depends on the skill of the worker using it - more than anything else!
maddoc
... likes film again.
Jack, I too like the last one (BW) of your "northumbria" series !! Indeed a strange place, would like to see more.
Tom, thanks again for bringing it down to the facts ! The 35mm Summilux-M is what it is an outdated design from the early 60s (a Mandler design like the 75/1.4, 50/1.0) and there are improved lens designs available these days (especially the unbeaten 35mm Summilux ASPH) However, I like the flaws and squirks of the pre-ASPH version (except for the 0.9m close-focusing distance) and continue trying to get the best out of it ...
BTW, the only 35mm lens on top of my wishlist is the 35mm Summilux Aspherical (the first one), unfortunatley way to expensive ...
Cheers,
Gabor
Tom, thanks again for bringing it down to the facts !
The 35mm Summilux-M is what it is an outdated design from the early 60s (a Mandler design like the 75/1.4, 50/1.0) and there are improved lens designs available these days (especially the unbeaten 35mm Summilux ASPH) However, I like the flaws and squirks of the pre-ASPH version (except for the 0.9m close-focusing distance) and continue trying to get the best out of it ... BTW, the only 35mm lens on top of my wishlist is the 35mm Summilux Aspherical (the first one), unfortunatley way to expensive ...
Cheers,
Gabor
deepwhite
Well-known
It's really great to see someone posting negative comment on a lens, followed by some great shots taken by that very lens. I really enjoy that.
I don't think there's a "best lens for everything", and I don't think a forum is used to prove that. As an amateur, what I do in the forum is to learn, since I can really see great works from almost any lens in great hands.
Take the Lux35preA for example, I see all the photos, and I know it's not very flare-resistant; then I see two things:
(1) how a good photographer avoids the flare
(2) how a good photographer uses the flare as an advantage
The lux35preA is a "flawed" lens; everyone here knows it. What we enjoy seeing is how someone can get away with the flaws, or turn the flaws into magic.
Instead of hypnotizing ourselves. Which, if were ture, would your comment have had its ground, Kevin.
I don't think there's a "best lens for everything", and I don't think a forum is used to prove that. As an amateur, what I do in the forum is to learn, since I can really see great works from almost any lens in great hands.
Take the Lux35preA for example, I see all the photos, and I know it's not very flare-resistant; then I see two things:
(1) how a good photographer avoids the flare
(2) how a good photographer uses the flare as an advantage
The lux35preA is a "flawed" lens; everyone here knows it. What we enjoy seeing is how someone can get away with the flaws, or turn the flaws into magic.
Instead of hypnotizing ourselves. Which, if were ture, would your comment have had its ground, Kevin.
Last edited: